27
Health Insurance – Simple Facts
Posted by | Posted in Health Insurance | Posted on 27-12-2010
California is known for its varied climate and geography, as well as for its ethnically diverse population. By 2007, California’s population has reached 37,700,000, making it the most populated state, the 13th fastest-growing in US. Having these numbers in mind, it is very clear why health insurance in this part of the world is so important. With growing hospital waiting lists and hygiene under scrutiny, health insurance is now vital and important for all the people that leave in this state. The personal income was $38,956 in 2006, ranking 11th in the US nation. Great number, one might say, meaning that Californians can afford to spend a few bucks on health insurance, for the peace of their minds.
In California, health insurance may be provided through a government-sponsored social insurance program, or from private insurance companies. Also, health insurance may be purchased on a group basis (e.g., by a company to cover its employees) or purchased by individual consumers. In each case, the covered groups or individuals pay premiums or taxes to help protect themselves from high or unexpected health care expenses.
But how exactly does this work? Health insurance works by estimating the overall risk of healthcare expenses and developing a routine finance structure (such as a monthly premium or annual tax) that will ensure that money is available to pay for the healthcare benefits specified in the insurance agreement. The benefit is administered by a central organization, most often either a government agency or a private or not-for-profit entity operating a health plan. Things are great so far. But what if man people get sick suddenly? Well, all the risks are calculated, operating with such big numbers leave almost no room for error. Basically, all insurance companies have great profit from this activity. Insurance companies use the term "adverse selection" to describe the tendency for only those who will benefit from insurance to buy it. Specifically when talking about health insurance, unhealthy people are more likely to purchase health insurance because they anticipate large medical bills. On the other side, people who consider themselves to be reasonably healthy may decide that medical insurance is an unnecessary expense; if they see the doctor once a year and it costs $300, that’s much better than making monthly insurance payments of $450. But this was also taken into consideration by the insurance companies.
The U.S. market-based health care system, so the Californian system as well, relies heavily on private and not-for-profit health insurance, which is the primary source of coverage for most Americans. According to the United States Census Bureau, approximately 85% of Americans have health insurance; some 61% obtain it through an employer, while about 8% purchase it directly. Various government agencies provide coverage to about 27% of Americans, and these numbers are similar for California as well.
Watch the video related to health insurance
Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore sits down with Democracy Now! ahead of the release of his new film SiCKO. The film is a seething indictment of the US health care system. It focuses not on the more than 40 million people who don’t have healthcare but on the 250 million who do – many of whom are abandoned by the very health insurance industry they payed into for decades. “They are getting away with murder,” Moore said of the health insurance companies.
Help answer the question about health insurance
How do health insurance tax deductions work for a member managed LLC?I own a business (LLC) with two other people. It is only us three; we do not have any additional employees. We pay for our health insurance through our business. Based on these facts, I was wondering how much I stand to save on my personal taxes. Is this a standard write off like any other business expense or does the IRS treat health insurance differently?
There was no question that there could be things done to address the gaps in health care. Both conservatives and liberals agreed to that. Both parties have had a gridlock in Washington for decades no how best to achieve that goal. For the most part we had the best health care delivery system in the world, but the gaps had to be addressed. First was the escalating cost, second was the access by average people who could not afford or meet the rising insurance costs. The Republicans had plans that the Democrats would not agree to because they did not have enough bureaucratic control over it. The Democrats wanted an over expensive far reaching plan that would cost far too much and be a socialized entitlement. So what to do. The system just passed will not only hurt access, but cost us many jobs as the small businesses fail due to more taxes. Most already are close to failure and the tax connected with the new system will force many to close leaving more unemployment. The public option although not in play now will be brought back as the only option as insurance companies start to drop health care coverage due to the costs involved with pre existing conditions and no lifetime cap. We have opened a Pandora's box that must be closed as soon as possible. There is a better way than a massive bureaucracy that will cost trillions more than what we had. Problems ahead; doctor shortages, rationing of services, waiting periods and massive costs. Greenspan stated that if there were an error in the estimate of the costs as has been with other programs like Medicare, it would extremely bad for the economy and the country.
There are lots of conflicting responses here. <<shakes head in disbelief>>
The answer is NO. Nowadays, an HIV test is considered part of a normal workup for sexually active adults. A health insurer CANNOT raise a person's premium simply because of such an innocuous test.
Secondly, while this may be an individual policy (instead of a group policy), individual policies do not receive individual rate increases. In other words, your friend's insurer calculates premiums based on the claims losses from ALL insureds having the same policy that your friend does — so he was not the only one whose premium increased. Generally, premiums can only be individually increased due to a person transitioning into a higher "age bracket."
If your friend wants to confirm the reason(s) why his premium increased, he can file a complaint with his state's insurance commissioner's office, which will investigate.
One final thought: insurers CANNOT do whatever they want to do, as some folks wrote above. They must abide by the insurance laws of the states where they sell policies. Actually, insurers are highly regulated.
You're right. The health insurance industry tells people what's in the best interests of the health insurance industry. Some people accept that, while others ask questions, and don't settle for easy answers.
I’m sorry but I am going to have to criticize this video on the grounds of BS. I grew up in BC Canada, and there is no way, NO way that someone who lived in Vancouver (population 578000) would go to the town Red Deer Alberta (population less than 100000) for treatment with a specialist. If she needed a specialist they would BE in VANCOUVER. This is absolute bullcrap and I am furious that someone is trying to pass this off as authentic.
well, if you are smart and can work the system well, there's really no better place than kaiser. everything is tied together, and it's worth the patience to get all your needs taken care of through one central provider. that being said, as long as you have any HMO, you'll need to see a generalist first. if you can afford it, switch over to a PPO or POS, but know what you'll be paying way more for basically the same services.
@Aprilmax010 Why do Americans come to Canada for care?? It happens both ways. And evidence shows that very little go to the U.S. for care from Canada. Google the study Phantoms in the Snow, which exactly looked at that topic. They concluded that very few Canadians go south for care, describing it as a tip without an iceburg.
Health care will be screwed up if the clowns in Washington get involved in it. We should demand that they have to buy insurance on the open market like everyone else. Then see how quick things change.
Because the LEFT wants us to be a Socialized Country!
They know we have medicaid and ADC (aid for dependent children)
but they want more
they are never pleased…
they want us to be dependent upon our government!
The left needs a perma nipple to suckle on for all eternity…
makes me think that their parents did not raise them right.. their parents lacked at the skills to raise independent children….
instead they raised their children to always depend on someone or something.. and the outcome of that is never good!
@portlanddem You might be right, but the people who voted for Bush because they were conservative were people who wanted smaller government. As I have said before, nobody really predicted how poorly Bush was going to do.
As for health care, I am against single payer system because it can be abused far too easily, there will be no competition to keep the system in check. Competition runs prices down, not up. Without competition, prices can be adjusted to anything.
@NoNameC68 It won’t even matter either way because I don’t think it would pass regardless. Well when it doesn’t pass, guess who is going to pay for my health care and the over 50 million other Americans who are without it?—that’s right, you. I have never used the ER to see a doc, but things are gonna change when this doesn’t pass.
Then when you get older, and get sick quicker and have your employer drop your health insurance, you would have wished differently back in 2010.
@NoNameC68 Lastly, no, Bush was voted in because Gore was not “down-to-Earth” in his conversations with folks. Gore didn’t pass himself off as the “type you can sit down and have a beer with” like Bush did himself. Not saying Gore would have done a splendid job, but yes, from the such poor choice Bush was, we can only go by Bush’s record in office from 2001-2009 and not anyone else.
The Repubs in congress have been outright admitting that they will do anything to have it fail. Why? Not because they are legitimately against it. No, it is because if health care reform fails, Obama and the Dems will suffer. The Repubs are saying it outright. DeMint, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK). For the Republicans, it'a all about Obama and the Dem's failing, all the while they can whine and say, "well, they did it! What could we do?" Lame.
@NoNameC68 Yes, a *TRUE* conservative is for smaller gov’t. Problem is, as of this moment, there is NOBODY on the right who is actually for smaller gov’t and less spending–not a single member of Congress, and not even a presidential hopeful–nobody.
I agree they need competition–why do you think the private ins. industry has run amok with their fees every year and health care costs skyrocketing more than double what it was even 10 yrs ago? It’s got so bad, it’s literally “over-flowing” now.
@NoNameC68 I agree we need a military–I have no problem with that. Where I have the problem ( and millions of other folks do as well ) is when we use our military to invade a country that had NOTHING to do with attacking us.
We don’t invade another nation just to start a war. That is immoral and unjust, and a HUGE waste of taxpayer money.
@MadHabber93 If what you say is true then why do Canadians come to the USA for healthcare? It sounds like our government is putting some people on waiting lists. Even some famous people are coming to the USA for health care. Some people must be having some problems with the Canadian health care.
healthplans.bebto.com – my family have this health insurance. It is affordable and has good coverage for dental issues.
Yes they are…maybe you should move to a better country like Haiti..what a wonderful place. Gripe, gripe gripe you would not know a hardship it if hit you in the face
@portlanddem Sorry if this is a few months old (written May of 2010)
“The director of the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday that the health care reform legislation would cost, over the next ten years, $115 billion more than previously thought, bringing the total cost to more than $1 trillion. ”